Is calories in calories out a meme?

No, it's based on the 1st law of thermodynamics, and more precisely on the law of conservation of energy.

dumb fuc

It's not a meme. That chicken will last a hell of a lot longer btw.

>>36890393
I have no words how fucking stupid your thread is.

>>36890428
The first law of thermodynamics *is* conservation of energy. Kek

>>36890428

So we can just eat anything with the right amount of kilojoules? Like leaves? Fuck the digestive system right?

File: image.png (490KB, 449x401px) Image search: [Google]

490KB, 449x401px

>>36890428
>he fell for the thermodynamics meme

>>36890393
It depends on what you're using it for. If you're trying to lose weight, yeah, it's legit.

If you're trying to decrease body fat percentage while keeping muscle and being healthy, than yeah, it's a meme. You gotta eat healthy, exercise regularly, etc.

>>36890440
I have no words how fucking stupid your reply to this thread is.

>>36890393
To lose or gain weight look at the calories
To gain muscle lift hard and have good macros
To be healthy and have your hormones on point have your micronutrients

>>36890393
yes

Try bulking on 5000 calories of butter per day and tell me what you look like next year

>>36890393
>satiety is completely controlled by stomach volume

More dishonest vegan misinformation propaganda

>>36890443
No. It mean that calories in/calories out is the only thing that matters concerning weight loss/weight gain. Of course if you want to build muscle or not have depleted uranium constipation shits you'll have to look deeper than that, but the basic principles will still apply.

>>36890469
So you'd be morbidly obese?

What's your point lol.

>>36890443

Never said that,

I'm just saying that if your body is consuming 2500 calories a day for instance, and you take in 2000, there is no way on earth you'll gain weight, that's just physically impossible

>>36890474
The point is that you're going to be shitting out a ton of that butter and the calories aren't going to be absorbed.

>>36890471
But it is. However, satiety/hunger has nothing to do with actually needing to eat. They are just triggers the stomach sends to the body saying "I'm full, stop eating," or, "I'm empty, get hungry."

>>36890472
>>36890493

My point is that "neutral" calories are measured through a burning process, not the human body. If we can't get big on leaves like gorillas, why assume that we process all sorts of macronutritiens equally. Matter of enzymes and such.

I'm not arguing that oil and pasta are that different in terms of energy absorbed but there's no logical reason to assume it's identical.

>>36890493
what about midgets tho

>>36890471

It's true, though

that's the reason why gastric bands work so well

>>36890523

body consumption is different for everyone

women usually need less, if you do a lot of sport, you'll need more

if you're shorter you'll need less too, genetics also play a role (not in the way fat tumblrinas think it does), we all know someone who can eat like a motherfucker and never get fat

some body types naturally need more calories, that's just the way they work (maybe they radiate more heat, idk)

but my point being, if you find out how much your body is consuming on average, and do not take in more than that, it's impossible to get fat

>>36890519
Stop pretending to be retarded. Of course you are assumed to eat a fucking normal diet that an average person would eat, and not fucking tree leaves and grass.

>>36890393
Its math and science. Idiot.

>>36890587
Careful, you're scaring away the burgers.

>>36890519

I get your point

well, no matter how good the digestive system is, it cannot reach more than 100% efficiency,

it's like a car engine, one about a third of the fuel is actually used to move the car, the rest is wasted in heat, moving parts friction, etc

in digestion you would expect the same, part of the energy contained in the food will be "wasted" to process the food itself, depending on the food, your digestive system might be more or less efficient at converting the energy

but even if you take in 500 calories, and that you have a very efficient digestive system, on a very easily digested food, you could be at 99% efficiency, you still won't absorb >500 calories

>>36890574

I'm sorry for the nitpicking but when somebody quotes the 1st law of thermodynamics, they've deserved it. That has nothing to do with malabsorption for example. Of course you can apply calories in - calories out for 99+% of people but don't make stupid reductionist claims pretending to rely on science.

>>36890646

I don't think you get the 1st law of thermodynamics

>>36890657

Nice one-liner there buddy.

>>36890617
>you still won't absorb >500 calories

No of course not. I was thinking about it the other way, that is, some genetic freak might absorb too little. Of course ~all people complaining about their "fast" metabolism are false reports but there are actual medical cases, albeit very rare.

>>36890393
No, it's not a goddamned meme, it's common sense and a path to success. You have to ACCURATELY count calories though and that means weighing and measuring anything that's calorie dense.

Don't want to make my own thread but have a food related question.

I've been at 1800 calorie a day for 6 months along with 3x cardio 3x lifts schedule. Last week I got sick and was diagnosed with diverticulitis and told not to exercise for up to 6 weeks. I've lost 60lbs in this time frame and can easily lose 40 more.

What's my best possible for solution to continue weight loss. I don't care if it's expensive I don't want to risk being fat again.

Also I normally would just suffer through the pain and work out but its impossible. It sucks.

File: iscoobydoobydoo.jpg (46KB, 394x370px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 394x370px

>>36890428
>2016
>believing in science

How does tren change thermodynamics completely

>>36890773
Get sick again.

>>36890773
Walk is an exercise. Walk till you're exhausted.

>>36890817
I've been walking when I'm not hitting my pants or in pain. I'm just wondering if there's an easy low cal diet for weight loss that isn't for soccer mom's.

>>36890646
There's absolutely no reason to nitpick this. You're trying to be pedantic to look smarter and it just makes you look like an autistic jackass like it always will.

File: 1460296424919.jpg (295KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 700x700px

How do the foodsmiths know how many much calories is in their foods?

How do they come to the number they put on the box?

File: 1456407878010.jpg (39KB, 376x358px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 376x358px

>>36891251
Like how do they measure it?

Do they burn food in a box and measure the heat energy?

Or do they feed a mouse a burger and see how far it can go afterward?

File: 1361212620832.jpg (39KB, 176x187px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 176x187px

>>36891251
>>36891279

>>36890393
No, but there are some instances where it doesn't work.
Like for instance with sucrose. (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moQZd1-BC0Y)
The basic concept is correct but it needs some refining.

File: 1453499004551.png (322KB, 591x716px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 591x716px

>>36891326
Basically I'm trying to ascertain whether the number on the box is an estimate of objective energy content, or an estimate of energy yielded by digestion.

Because if it's the former -- if they burn the food in a box and see how much energy is in it at all -- then this niggie >>36890443 >>36890519 has a point.

But if the number on the box is already a measurement of useable energy, vis a vis mouse races, then he's a big dumb idiot moron sped retard mongoloid troglodyte in a duncecap because the factor has already been roughly accounted for.

>>36891346
>vis a vis mouse races
I'm not going to take you seriously as long as you keep using foreign terms incorrectly.

File: 1453715376032.jpg (2MB, 2592x1936px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2592x1936px

>>36891383
I am from Tunisia, I just want to know how they appraise the foods.

Please feel me.

>>36891457
You're mentally challenged my man. Instead of trying to use unfunny quirky colorful insults, learn to make sense first.

If CICO is true then how come teenagers get away with shitty diet without getting fat?

>>36891457

They litteraly burn the food and measure the temperature rise in water. Thats how they know how many kilojoules it contains (they then convert it to kcal).

>>36891346
i am fairly certain barring any digestive issues (easily detectable by your feces or other methods) the number on the box is both.

>>36891346
Wanna know how I know you're Australian?

>>36891772
not all of them get away with it
those who do are very active
don't be retarded. it's like you've never seen a fat kid too lazy to do anything other than playing videogames or a kid running around outside all fucking day and only coming home for dinner

>>36891830
Yes

>>36890862
Low carb it.

>>36891835
They do get fat but a lot harder then someone who is 40 yo. Why is that?

>>36891867

Because they're fucking growing. All that extra mass isn't going to come out of nowhere.

>>36890526
>why gastric bands work so well
They don't, anon. Gatric bypass surgeries are the ones easiest to mess up by fatties. They can literally press the band out of place by binge eating and very often do so because fatty greed.

>>36890565
If you have a TDEE of 1200 is is near impossible to keep it without becoming a spergnerd since most foods eaten anywhere is calorie dense enough to fuck up numbers that low.

>>36890773
>I don't care if it's expensive I don't want to risk being fat again.
>expensive
>eating less is more expensive
....wat

>>36890393
>Is calories in calories out a meme?
Unless you live in a lab and can tell, with certainty, how many calories you need, take in, digest and shit out, it's just a meme, yes.

>>36892082
hooolly shit you're stupid

>>36891251
>>36891279
I realize my response is late.

That is actually a pretty good guess for how caloric content was originally measured, food would be burned inside a bomb calorimeter.

More modern estimates are done by breaking down and measuring the amount of protein/carbs/fats/alocohol in a food and then using accepted standards for the caloric content of protein/carbs/fats/alocohol (4/4/9/7 kcal/g respectively) to calculate total caloric content.

If you want more information google "Atwater system of caloric measurement" or some such.

>>36890393
No, but you have to realize it is the calories your body absorbs and the calories your body expends to do stuff.

This means you might have to eat a little less and work out a little more than somebody else; or vice versa

>>36890493

NUH UH

MUH GENETICS

CALORIES AREN'T REAL

>>36891279
>Do they burn food in a box and measure the heat energy?

I think they did back in the dark ages actually.

>>36892082
unless you live in an engineering lab and can tell exactly how much gas your car needs, takes in, combusts, and exhausts, gas mileage is just a meme yes

>>36890519
This anon is right though.

Especially with stuff like alcohol it's hard to say how much calories you actually get from it. Your body metabolizes it in different ways depending on how much you drink.

What he is essentially saying is that if gasoline was classified as edible, it would be maybe 700-900 kcals per 100g because that's just how they measure it

>>36892074
Fat logic at its best.
>I am fat because fast food is healthier than whole foods

>>36892481
if you don't think in practice 100kcal of one food doesn't equal 100kcal of other food, with exception of very high fiber foods, you're motherfucking retarded
if it's digested easily enough to be counted as food for humans then 100kcal is 100kcal or close enough to not make any difference whatsoever

>>36890393
No. If you want to simplify everything, it's basically that, but there are other variables to take into consideration, for example macro ratios and number of meals, which are also important.

But at the end ratios and meals don't matter if you don't stay in a caloric surplus/deficit. So in the end the most important factor is effectively cal in / cal out.

>>36890428
so if we burn a days worth of uranium fuel in a power plant in the span of 15 minutes the workers can just switch it off and go home early?

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-we-get-fat.html/

Educate yourselves before posting shit.

Lyle's site should be in the fucking sticky, specially the nutrition section.

>>36892052
Gastric bands and Gastric bypass surgeries are 2 different things.

>>36890428
>not praying to jesus for weight loss

>>36890393
It is a meme because it doesn't factor how your body uses the calories. Dietary fat is much more easily stored as fat in the body than carbs and protein. The glycemic index of foods and meal timing also plays a factor in how much gets stored. It's actually pretty easy to find studies showing differences in weight loss just on the composition of the diet while controlling for calories.

>>36892538
>Lyle's site should be in the fucking sticky

>1. Carbs are rarely converted to fat and stored as such
>5. Ingested dietary fat is primarily stored, eating more of it doesn’t impact on fat oxidation to a significant degree

I can think of a few reasons its not

>>36892603
Read the entire fucking thing idiot.

>>36892593
>It's actually pretty easy to find studies showing differences in weight loss just on the composition of the diet while controlling for calories.

lol

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/diets-weight-loss-carbohydrate-protein-fat/

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0804748#t=articleBackground

etc

I don't get weight loss. Is metabolism a meme? If calories in and calories out is the only thing that matters, can I just eat dinner? Won't that make my body think it starving and start storing fat? When I eat next won't it just think it's binge and store it as fat instead of using it?

>>36892654
This is some top quality bait someone is actually gonna reply to this seriously.

>>36890465
This

>>36890501
But if the calories aren't being absorbed, then they aren't considered 'calories in'

>>36892654
nope, but even if it does, do you think it would generate calories out of thin air at the time you're """"starving""""? no, it would use the fat, so what's the difference
assuming you don't use synthetic hormones/weird chemicals, you're healthy and your body doesn't use motherfucking photosynthesis it's calories in calories out

Calories in, calories out IS NOT a meme. What IS a meme, is that people think every calorie is of the same quality as every other calorie. Counting calories won't get you anywhere if all you count them from is McDonald's.

>>36892720
It WILL give you weight loss and even fat loss just the same, even if it's McDonalds (which actually can have a pretty decent macro profile if you think a bit about what to buy).

>>36892673
Don't care.
>>36892654
You can't "store it instead of using it". Your body needs a constant supply of energy. You'd literally drop dead right on the spot if for some reason the energy supply was cut off completely.

>>36892603
Both those points are correct.
Ingested carbs are primarily used as fuel and stored as glycogen long before being stored as fat.
See "De novo lipogenesis in humans: metabolic and regulatory aspects"
Ingested fat is what is saved for being stored as bodyfat since it's already fat, a less energy consuming process than creating fat out of something else.

>>36890465
>To be healthy and have your hormones on point have your micronutrients
What does this mean? (serious)

>>36892622
The fat content of the "low fat" was probably still too high to see a difference. Here's a more recent study where they went lower and did see a difference

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/behindtheheadlines/news/2015-08-14-low-fat-diet-better-than-low-carb-diet-for-getting-rid-of-body-fat/

There's also this one that shows way more muscle gain and fat loss just by going from 20% fat to 10% fat

http://suppversity.blogspot.com/2012/03/if-you-go-high-carb-you-better-go.html?m=1

>>36892820
you know something but you should read more carefully
key words: RARELY, PRIMARILY
it's not rarely, it's not often, it just depends on macros and kcals in/out

>>36892851
It spells out exactly when it gets turned to fat more often. When you're eating so many carbs that they alone would be over your TDEE already.

>>36892832
Micronutrients are vitamins and elements. Your body needs those to create certain chemicals which are important for your body to function properly.

>>36892843
The differences were small and likely caused by glycogen depletion in the low carb group.

>>36892536
Ofcourse, but that goverment doesn't want us to know that.

>>36892536
comparing human metabolism to a power plant
what a dumb nigger
how about you eat your own shit because if it's a waste it's probably toxic to the environment?

No.

I've lost 5-6kg in just over a month solely by following the calories in calories out.

>>36892914
lel
This anon >>36890428 equated calories to the total energy in a system

If you cant see how wrong that is there is simply no hope for you.

>>36892891
The CIA has redacted all documents pertaining to nuclear project IIFYM

>>36890393

No, it's the absolute truth.

Pic-related is correct as well.

>>36893017
Lel, calorie is ameasurement for energy, you could count atomic energy in calories if you wanted.
Energy enters your system, energy leaves your system. If more leaves than enters, guess where it had to come from? It's certainly not the solar radiation hitting your skin.

>>36893042
>there is no pic
>there is no truth
5deep13me

>>36893032
>mfw im high and thought this was legit conspiracy theory

>>36893017
>calories from food + glycogen + calories in body fat
>the total energy in a system of human body
if you're saying I can't pick 2 you should go back to primary school and start all over again

>>36892536

The same amount of energy is created, not that the turbine could handle it. Just because energy is produced doesn't mean it will always be translated into work.

500 kcal of energy is always 500 kcal of energy if you burn it over 5 minutes or 5 hours. 500kcal of food will always produce the same amount of energy if it is burned immediately or transferred into a lump of body fat and then burned a year later.

>>36890393
It's probably oversimplification but who gives a shit, it works.

>>36893080
*assuming we're not considering breaking down muscle for energy

File: what is a calorie.png (49KB, 1288x407px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 1288x407px

>>36893083

>>36893047
>>36893080
>>36893083
>be human body
>Have complex multifaceted and occasionally inefficient process of digestion
>also have a widely under represented endocrine system
>also also have robust method of taking excess glucose in the blood and storing it as chemical energy
>be treated as a simple energy system, with implied absolute values

The bullying needs to stop

2000 cal of sugar /= 2000 cal of chicken

>>36893119
>be human body
>violate the universal law that states every single calorie is always accounted for and can't disappear or appear out of thin air
Seems legit

>>36893119

But it is the same, you moron.

>>36893114

Read carefully.

>>36893119
>2000 cal of sugar /= 2000 cal of chicken

>2000kcal =/= 2000kcal

I'm sure you can tell why that's wrong.

Sugar and chicken aren't the same, but in the right quantities, they can deliver the same energy, and that's what a calorie measures. Stop being stupid.

>>36893137
Are you fucking stupid sugar doesn't have any macro-nutrients chicken is much healthier Kama you fuck

>>36893119
>be this anon
>explain to other anons that 2+2=4
>don't realize that at the end of the day you won't lose weight if your energy intake isn't lower than your energy expenditure and that calories in calories out rule doesn't say anything about building muscle eating pure sugar

>>36893147
>sugar
>no macronutrients
>what are carbs

>>36893161
you know I'm gonna cut your life right questionmark Abu Heide Silentmaxx Olympians TV

>>36893128
>The body is a perfect energy system with calories being treated as absolute values.
Leems segit

>>36893168
>questionmark Abu Heide Silentmaxx Olympians TV
You okay there anon? Or is this a new meme I'm unaware of?

>>36893182
Its just excess caloric intake adding heat to the system.

>>36893189
You're starting to scare me anon

>>36893180
>implies energy wastage is not energy leaving the system
Do you even understand what entering and leaving means?

>>36890393
dont be a little cuck of /fit/ and just try it out yourself.

>>36893196
Shhh ;(

>>36893147
>Are you fucking stupid sugar doesn't have any macro-nutrients chicken is much healthier Kama you fuck

Nobody's talking about healthier, cunt. We're talking energy.

Now you realise you were wrong and a cunt. We're talking solely energy here, and weightloss or weightgain due to exess energy or caloric deficit.

Nobody's saying anything else. You can lose weight on McDonald's if you eat less calories than you need. Is it healthy? Nobody says it is, just that you can lose weight that way. There are better way, but stop trying to say a calorie isn't a calorie.

>>36893198
K then, I give up

Have fun with your crispy crunch diet
You will loose weight
You will get fat

>>36893231
Sure, forget all the experiments showing the exact opposite happening while also improving health markers. Those clearly never happened. Nope. Your body is going to be an idiot and only burn your muscle mass because that's something that would keep the most adaptable species on the planet alive in times and places where food availability and variety was bad.

>>36890503
There are numerous nutrient sensors throughout the stomach, peripheral organs and GI tract and CNS mechanisms as well. Is kindergarten your highest level of biology education?

>>36893284
>Your body is going to be an idiot and only burn your muscle mass

Thats literally what it does you idiot

>>36893312
Nope. Ever seen a fat person starving?

>>36893330
Yeah, all the time on tumblr

>>36893330
every time I go to mcdonalds

https://www.quora.com/Which-does-the-human-body-lose-first-on-poor-nutrition-fat-or-muscle

>>36890526
lung compression works well to prevent hypoxic drive by that logic

>>36893312
That has literally never been shown in any study, even when some obese dude was literally only fed water and vitamin pills did he lose almost no muscle.

>>36893354
>even when some obese dude was literally only fed water and vitamin pills did he lose almost no muscle.
[citation needed]

>>36890393

Friendly reminder that 400 Calories of chicken breast is about 4/5 a pound of food, or about 370g.

>>36890773
How tall and how much do/did you weigh? Just curious.

>>36893369
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/07/24/3549931.htm That?

>>36890587
Math is science.

>>36893119
You are right. But not for the reason you think.

I'll explain.

Assuming your maintenance is 2000 cal.

Either if you eat 2000 cals of sugar or 2000cals of chicken, your weight will NOT change.

But.

If you eat 2000 calories of sugar (carbohidrates), all of those will be burnt or converted to glycogen and stored in the muscles and liver. This means your body composition won't change either.

If you eat 2000 calories of chicken (80% protein 20% fats), the fat will be burnt, along with some of your stored fat, and the protein will be used for your muscle maintenance and making of other aminoacids, with some of it burnt for energy too. This means you'll slowly lose fat and gain a little bit of muscle, aka doing a recomp.

Your body WEIGHT won't change in either scenario, but in the second case you'll get leaner gradually (that means your bf% will go down even if your body weight stays the same).

>>36891457
Cool almonds, Ahmed. Want to bring them to the White House?

>>36890443
>anything with the right amount of kilojoules?
>Like leaves?

Yes, you can. Strong-man champions constantly graze on baby-spinach leaves for that reason.

>>36893474
>>36891457
sides have left for the gym

>>36892496
Actually there could be some truth to the 100 kcal not equalling 100 kcal of something else because the dietary labels (at least in the usa) are adjusted for how much a person should be able to digest and the studies that those adjustment factors are based on are decades old and don't really account for preservation techniques. Cooking makes foods easier to digest, so canned peas might have more usable calories than fresh ones without the labels showing it properly.

File: Y4RZmQf[1].png (80KB, 529x327px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 529x327px

>tfw you fell for the calories in/out meme and lost 20lbs

>>36893808
Lucky you, I lost 50 because of that meme. Might as well kill myself with this disgusting lean body.

Its a meme

only brainlets think that thermodynamics is a good way to describe human physiology.

Cal in/cal out is just a guideline, all it is. It has become an excuse to allow someone to eat shit and say 'huhhuhuh it fits ma macros brah'

>>36893865
it's a guideline good enough to follow and not worry about shit and get excellent results
fuck off

>>36893939
thats not an argument

my point is you guys preach it like its the new bible or some shit

>>36893952
nobody tells you 1000g of protein is 1000g of sugar
to 99.9% of average people with average fitness goals 100 kcal is motherfucking 100 kcal, whether it's rice or chocolate

>>36890393

It's still calories in vs cals out. It's just easier to eat 500 cals of chocolate then it is to say 500 cals of broccoli.

File: kilocalorie-to-kilowatthour.png (7KB, 800x310px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 800x310px

>>36893129
Calories are a measurement of energy, you cunts. You can convert the fuckers to kilowatt-hours and joules. 1 kcal = 0.001162 kWh.

>>36894024

Then why the fuck do you quote formal physics as if it was somehow relevant here ??

>fat fucks so bad at dieting that they start to dismiss science

>>36894082
It is relevant. You can't expect to somehow have significantly different results on the same amount of calories just by changing what you're eating, because those formal physics still always apply.

>>36893380
That's _fried_ chicken in the OP pic.

>>36894024
>>36894120
does eating 1000 kcal of white rice produce the same response in my body as 1000 kcal as chocolate? No it doesnt

Not to mention the difference in digestion

>>36894082
you're one stupid fucker
tell me how do you expect to lose weight without eating less energy than you use?
and tell me how exactly the first law of thermodynamics doesn't apply here and isn't a good way of explaining weight loss/gain to people?

>>36894155
1000 kcal, if that's the available amount to your body, will be used as 1000 kcal. You won't get 1200 kcal worth out of it, nor does 200 suddenly disappear for no reason

>>36894186
do you know what hormonal responses are

the body is waaaaaay more complex then what you just wrote

>>36894194
Did you know that laws of physics don't give a flying fuck about hormonal responses?

>>36894142

Yes, fried chicken is a shitload more, but poached or baked chicken breast is a lot of bang for your buck

>>36894218
>>36894194

How do you make a hormone?

[spoiler] You don't pay her [/spoiler]

File: 1460918968649.jpg (791KB, 1000x1830px) Image search: [Google]

791KB, 1000x1830px

>>36890393
Considering I eat McDonalds every day yet have a 6 pack, I don't think it's a meme. 2500 calories a day for me, 1500 of which consist of McDonald's Pizza, KFC, etc.

>>36894256
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/hyperthyroidism/basics/symptoms/con-20020986

and/or

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics

File: 1458736275876.png (261KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

261KB, 1280x853px

>>36890393
No. The human body cannot break the laws of thermodynamics. There are multiple ways however of increasing your metabolic rate, caffeine, exercise, dnp, and there are better ways to make you less hungry without increasing calorie consumption, 6 small meals, tons of veggies, appetite suppressants.

>>36894287
My friends mostly do the same thing. They're all in good shape too. I lift 5 days a week and my other 1000 calories are clean protein shakes and brown rice.

>>36894287
You don't need special genetics for physics to apply to you.

>>36894303
shit just realized i'm autistic and thought you said you thought it was a meme because you were eating over maintenance, nvm i'm a faggot

>>36894186
ur wrong
if u don't absorb it properly u won't get those 1000kcal

>>36894323
Haha it's cool man. Yeah i just eat at maintenance.

>>36894325
If it makes you vomit you don't get them either, that doesn't change the calories.

>>36894332
i have heard of people who have hyperthyroidism before being diagnosed and eat like a landwhale 24/7 365 and think they just have "a strong muhtabolism"

>>36890393
Calories in vs calories out dictates total weight gain and weight loss.... However you need to consider your Macros, if you're trying to put on muscle, a considerable amount of your calories will need to be from protein like meat eggs and milk.

I would say 150grams or more of protein per day is a starting point... After a couple years of lifting and being in a plateau the only way to gain more muscle and strength was to increase my protein to 250g of protein a day.... I actually lost fat and gained muscle

So yes, calories in vs calories out dictates overall weight but if you want that weight to be muscle you'll need to balance your macros

>>36894356
IIFYM is the best option. Usually I eat 2000 of my calories as whatever the fuck I want, and I use the last 500 on protein shakes to hit my 200g a day.

>>36890526
I knew someone that had that procedure.... They still ate a lot, they would eat to the point of throwing up because the stomachs was smaller... then they would eat more and throw up... They could barely hold down a sand which worth of food

So, its not just a "hunger" thing, fatties gave serious mental issues... Everyone feels hungry sometimes but only fatties and anorexic ppl have fucked up mental issues with food

>>36894218
by saying this you are confirming you have no clue about human physiology or any physiological system

the body isnt a box where you put energy in and just get energy out

>>36893832
>>36893808
should i stop falling for the cal in cal out meme? i already lost 15 lbs in 3 weeks senpaitachi

>>36894401
Read my lips, chum.
Nothing, absolutely NOTHING, is above the laws of physics, do you understand?
If you put energy into your mouth through food, and less energy than that comes out of your body in the form of waste or work, it means it stayed in your body. If it stayed in your body it means it got stored.

If more leaves your body in the form of work and waste than you put in, the extra energy had to come from somewhere, you guessed it, your body's fat stores because energy cannot be conjured up out of nothing. Your body has literally no other choice than to obey that law of physics in every single case always since the dawn of time until the death of the universe.

This is literally the same shit I read on MFP every day from fucking failures who don't want to admit they suck at keeping the fork down.
They always want to shove the blame to hormones or certain foods like candy as if that could magically make them gain fat even though their fat ass still needs a constant supply of energy to not fucking die.

>>36894581
do it before your hormones realize that a human body is too complicated to obey laws of physics and backfire at you by using all the calories to store fat

>>36894644
Don't eat coal guys.

>>36894779
>Hurr sunlight has energy but you don't photosynthesis
How fucking autistic do you have to be?

>>36894644
This is why so much of medicine and nutrition is focused on studying physics.

Oh, hold on... That's not true at all. Could it be that you're a fucking simpleton who relies on dumb memes for dumb people?

All matter contains some form of energy. So by your logic, eating a laxative will cause you to gain weight.

>>36894787
Yes, sunlight does contain energy.

No, it's not energy your body will process into fat.

This is why you're post about 'hurr durr physics hurr durr' is retarded.

>>36894792
Are you aware of what shitting is?
You know, the same thing that happens when you talk, just coming out the other end?
That's matter leaving your body, that contains energy your body can't use.
In other words, energy leaving your body, in other words calories out.

>>36894644
lmao-ing hard at this brainlet right here

"There was convincing evidence that energy balance is critical to maintaining healthy body weight and ensuring optimal nutrient intakes, regardless of macronutrient distribution of energy as % total fat and % total carbohydrates. " - The WHO

>>36894816
Okay, so hormones have nothing to do with metabolism and defecation then, right?

>>36894707
Holy shit time to inform my girlfriend the same thing!

She has PCOS and has already lost 7 pounds in 3 weeks, it will catch up with both of us!

>>36890393

No. It literally CAN'T work any other way, otherwise you'd die in a matter of hours if you missed a meal.

Your picture does illustrate the problem fat people run into: They choose foods that are extremely dense in calories such as fast food, thus getting a lot more calories per "stomach-full" than normal people who choose less calorie-dense things like veggies.

>>36894850
96% of the entire adult human population are within 300 calories of the average metabolism. Wow, hormones sure are important, huh?
Have you heard of the saying "Majoring in the Minors"? It's when you concentrate way too much on something that's almost insignificant and refuse to look at what actually matters.
Next you're gonna come at me with how protein burns more calories to digest than the other macros.

>>36890393
it is the simple truth. the more complex truth is that effiency is not constant, absorbtion rates vary etc etc. but looking at the big picture it is the truth.